easycure

Of course, the comment above was for Mr.iko, not for "!"

Presumptuous, finally, because it seems that only you have musical knowledge and read books on the subject; I recommend that you read the analysis of the Beatles by Piero Scaruffi, a music critic who also wrote the "history of rock" for Arcana: in a few lines and with many arguments, he dismantles the alleged "exalted" interpretative sentimentality of the Beatles. Not that I fully agree, but it is certainly a view that is decidedly more atypical and open than you (and I) initially think you have; it doesn't even matter if you go buy the book, you can find it at: www.scaruffi.com

... and you're even more arrogant in the next comment: excuse me, but who are you to pontificate so much about "priests spouting bullshit"? By the way, do you ever remember your review of Kid A (just to mention one I read recently)? You don't say a single word about the album, certainly not helping anyone to understand it, much less do you make "remember the feelings" that the album provokes, and the ending, excuse me, but it doesn't seem particularly original to me, and literally anyone who doesn't even know Radiohead could have written it. Just to point this out, since this isn't the right venue to talk about Kid A.

Furthermore, I may have been pretentious in wanting to describe such a great album in a brief review, but, damn, you also seem remarkably arrogant to me: reading your comments, it’s quite evident that you feel superior and more precise than many of those who write here; yet I reiterate that your description of the Beatles' music as "interpretive sentimentalism" opposed to the "provocative dimension" of the VU seems decidedly limiting, if not downright misleading.

Look, you might be right about everything, but the problem is that a review is not an encyclopedia: what you are demanding seems much more like a sort of celebratory biography complete with references to the chaotic life of 1960s New York and notes on the true concept of "independence," obviously all impossible topics to tackle in this context; besides, I believe, not having exactly a musical education since elementary school, that I know quite well what "independence" means, and my comparison between the Beatles and VU was by no means related to the fact that one was independent and the other was not just because one sold millions of copies and the other didn't. You said that, not me. As for the words used to describe the album, nothing more to say, yours is simply an opinion like many others (different) above your comment.

Mr. Iko, my response above was only to your first note; I have now read the others as well, and I am thinking about a response.

Guys, it's okay!! I won't make comparisons like that anymore!! Anyway, I want to emphasize for the third time that my comparison was not about music; it was about the importance that both bands have in the collective imagination, about how much these two bands have actually conveyed in Western mass culture. The comparison came from the fact that, from this point of view, the Beatles are the non plus ultra of Rock, because no one has been as famous, loved, remembered, appreciated, or studied as they have. I was simply saying that it would be enlightening and beautiful if a band as unique and brilliant as the VU were considered in the same way, having the same role and cultural influence. It may be impossible, given the enormously lesser communicability of the VU's proposal, and from this standpoint, you are certainly right to say they are not comparable, but it would be nice. Furthermore, I disagree with the definition of the Beatles' music as "interpretative sentimentalism," which I find quite restrictive, since the "provocative dimension" that you attribute to the VU was also very much a part of the "fab four" for a good part of their career, or at least for perhaps the most significant part. In any case, I'm happy; another passionate VU fan, I assure you they're a Must for me too! :)

x livio: I'm saving nothing because in my opinion there’s nothing worth saving in this group!! :) Consequently, I find it pointless to talk about the concept! It’s true that there are no groups that don’t take inspiration from things already done, but, FOR JUPITER :), there is the concept of reworking (or reinterpretation)!!! And the fact that many people exalt this band so much, and therefore interpret it in a certain way, I believe is enough to justify the existence of the aforementioned criticisms, no matter how trivial they may seem.
P.S. It’s true, I’m not familiar with the story in detail, but it should be about someone who undergoes hypnosis to bring back memories of a murder he witnessed (and isn’t sure if he was involved). Right?

Alright! Well, what can I say, it was just to emphasize the review. Let's say they influenced A LOT of what came after. You know, Sonic Youth, all the noise rock, Jesus and Mary Chain, much of the '90s indie sound (think lo-fi)... anyway, just as I don't need to tell you how genius they were, you don't come and tell me to broaden my analysis of the '60s, which I believe I know quite well, and I don't think they gifted anything on par with the VU (not to be all-encompassing, maybe I'm a bit too much of a fan, as Giov also mentioned)!!

Yes, these reviews that spark controversy are nice, and I thank Jamie for "integrating" what I had expressed in the review.. But guys.. Relax! It's only rock 'n roll!!!